/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 *
 * orclauses.cpp
 *      Routines to extract restriction OR clauses from join OR clauses
 *
 * Portions Copyright (c) 2022 Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd.
 * Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2022, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
 * Portions Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California
 *
 * IDENTIFICATION
 *      src/gausskernel/optimizer/util/orclauses.cpp
 *
 *-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 */

#include "postgres.h"

#include "nodes/makefuncs.h"
#include "nodes/nodeFuncs.h"
#include "optimizer/clauses.h"
#include "optimizer/cost.h"
#include "optimizer/orclauses.h"
#include "optimizer/restrictinfo.h"

static bool is_safe_restriction_clause_for(RestrictInfo *rinfo, RelOptInfo *rel);
static Expr *extract_or_clause(RestrictInfo *or_rinfo, RelOptInfo *rel);
static void consider_new_or_clause(PlannerInfo *root, RelOptInfo *rel, Expr *orclause, RestrictInfo *join_or_rinfo);

/*
 * extract_restriction_or_clauses
 *      Examine join OR-of-AND clauses to see if any useful restriction OR
 *      clauses can be extracted.  If so, add them to the query.
 *
 * Although a join clause must reference multiple relations overall,
 * an OR of ANDs clause might contain sub-clauses that reference just one
 * relation and can be used to build a restriction clause for that rel.
 * For example consider
 *        WHERE ((a.x = 42 AND b.y = 43) OR (a.x = 44 AND b.z = 45));
 * We can transform this into
 *        WHERE ((a.x = 42 AND b.y = 43) OR (a.x = 44 AND b.z = 45))
 *            AND (a.x = 42 OR a.x = 44)
 *            AND (b.y = 43 OR b.z = 45);
 * which allows the latter clauses to be applied during the scans of a and b,
 * perhaps as index qualifications, and in any case reducing the number of
 * rows arriving at the join.  In essence this is a partial transformation to
 * CNF (AND of ORs format).  It is not complete, however, because we do not
 * unravel the original OR --- doing so would usually bloat the qualification
 * expression to little gain.
 *
 * The added quals are partially redundant with the original OR, and therefore
 * would cause the size of the joinrel to be underestimated when it is finally
 * formed.  (This would be true of a full transformation to CNF as well; the
 * fault is not really in the transformation, but in clauselist_selectivity's
 * inability to recognize redundant conditions.)  We can compensate for this
 * redundancy by changing the cached selectivity of the original OR clause,
 * canceling out the (valid) reduction in the estimated sizes of the base
 * relations so that the estimated joinrel size remains the same.  This is
 * a MAJOR HACK: it depends on the fact that clause selectivities are cached
 * and on the fact that the same RestrictInfo node will appear in every
 * joininfo list that might be used when the joinrel is formed.
 * And it doesn't work in cases where the size estimation is nonlinear
 * (i.e., outer and IN joins).  But it beats not doing anything.
 *
 * We examine each base relation to see if join clauses associated with it
 * contain extractable restriction conditions.  If so, add those conditions
 * to the rel's baserestrictinfo and update the cached selectivities of the
 * join clauses.  Note that the same join clause will be examined afresh
 * from the point of view of each baserel that participates in it, so its
 * cached selectivity may get updated multiple times.
 */
void extract_restriction_or_clauses(PlannerInfo *root)
{
    Index rti;

    /* Examine each baserel for potential join OR clauses */
    for (rti = 1; (int)rti < root->simple_rel_array_size; rti++) {
        RelOptInfo *rel = root->simple_rel_array[rti];
        ListCell   *lc = NULL;

        /* there may be empty slots corresponding to non-baserel RTEs */
        if (rel == NULL) {
            continue;
        }

        Assert(rel->relid == rti);    /* sanity check on array */

        /* ignore RTEs that are "other rels" */
        if (rel->reloptkind != RELOPT_BASEREL) {
            continue;
        }

        /*
         * Find potentially interesting OR joinclauses.  We can use any
         * joinclause that is considered safe to move to this rel by the
         * parameterized-path machinery, even though what we are going to do
         * with it is not exactly a parameterized path.
         *
         * However, it seems best to ignore clauses that have been marked
         * redundant (by setting norm_selec > 1).  That likely can't happen
         * for OR clauses, but let's be safe.
         */
        foreach(lc, rel->joininfo) {
            RestrictInfo *rinfo = (RestrictInfo *) lfirst(lc);

            if (restriction_is_or_clause(rinfo) && join_clause_is_movable_to(rinfo, rel) && rinfo->norm_selec <= 1) {
                /* Try to extract a qual for this rel only */
                Expr *orclause = extract_or_clause(rinfo, rel);

                /*
                 * If successful, decide whether we want to use the clause,
                 * and insert it into the rel's restrictinfo list if so.
                 */
                if (orclause) {
                    consider_new_or_clause(root, rel, orclause, rinfo);
                }
            }
        }
    }
}

/*
 * Is the given primitive (non-OR) RestrictInfo safe to move to the rel?
 */
static bool is_safe_restriction_clause_for(RestrictInfo *rinfo, RelOptInfo *rel)
{
    /*
     * We want clauses that mention the rel, and only the rel.  So in
     * particular pseudoconstant clauses can be rejected quickly.  Then check
     * the clause's Var membership.
     */
    if (rinfo->pseudoconstant) {
        return false;
    }
    if (!bms_equal(rinfo->clause_relids, rel->relids)) {
        return false;
    }

    /* We don't want extra evaluations of any volatile functions */
    if (contain_volatile_functions((Node *) rinfo->clause)) {
        return false;
    }

    return true;
}

/*
 * Try to extract a restriction clause mentioning only "rel" from the given
 * join OR-clause.
 *
 * We must be able to extract at least one qual for this rel from each of
 * the arms of the OR, else we can't use it.
 *
 * Returns an OR clause (not a RestrictInfo!) pertaining to rel, or NULL
 * if no OR clause could be extracted.
 */
static Expr *extract_or_clause(RestrictInfo *or_rinfo, RelOptInfo *rel)
{
    List *clauselist = NIL;
    ListCell *lc = NULL;

    /*
     * Scan each arm of the input OR clause.  Notice we descend into
     * or_rinfo->orclause, which has RestrictInfo nodes embedded below the
     * toplevel OR/AND structure.  This is useful because we can use the info
     * in those nodes to make is_safe_restriction_clause_for()'s checks
     * cheaper.  We'll strip those nodes from the returned tree, though,
     * meaning that fresh ones will be built if the clause is accepted as a
     * restriction clause.  This might seem wasteful --- couldn't we re-use
     * the existing RestrictInfos?    But that'd require assuming that
     * selectivity and other cached data is computed exactly the same way for
     * a restriction clause as for a join clause, which seems undesirable.
     */
    Assert(is_orclause(or_rinfo->orclause));
    foreach(lc, ((BoolExpr *) or_rinfo->orclause)->args) {
        Node *orarg = (Node *) lfirst(lc);
        List *subclauses = NIL;
        Node *subclause = NULL;

        /* OR arguments should be ANDs or sub-RestrictInfos */
        if (is_andclause(orarg)) {
            List *andargs = ((BoolExpr *) orarg)->args;
            ListCell *lc2 = NULL;

            foreach(lc2, andargs) {
                RestrictInfo *rinfo = lfirst_node(RestrictInfo, lc2);

                if (restriction_is_or_clause(rinfo)) {
                    /*
                     * Recurse to deal with nested OR.  Note we *must* recurse
                     * here, this isn't just overly-tense optimization: we
                     * have to descend far enough to find and strip all
                     * RestrictInfos in the expression.
                     */
                    Expr *suborclause = extract_or_clause(rinfo, rel);
                    if (suborclause) {
                        subclauses = lappend(subclauses, suborclause);
                    }
                } else if (is_safe_restriction_clause_for(rinfo, rel)) {
                    subclauses = lappend(subclauses, rinfo->clause);
                }
            }
        } else {
            RestrictInfo *rinfo = castNode(RestrictInfo, orarg);
            Assert(!restriction_is_or_clause(rinfo));
            if (is_safe_restriction_clause_for(rinfo, rel)) {
                subclauses = lappend(subclauses, rinfo->clause);
            }
        }

        /*
         * If nothing could be extracted from this arm, we can't do anything
         * with this OR clause.
         */
        if (subclauses == NIL) {
            return NULL;
        }

        /*
         * OK, add subclause(s) to the result OR.  If we found more than one,
         * we need an AND node.  But if we found only one, and it is itself an
         * OR node, add its subclauses to the result instead; this is needed
         * to preserve AND/OR flatness (ie, no OR directly underneath OR).
         */
        subclause = (Node *) make_ands_explicit(subclauses);
        if (is_orclause(subclause)) {
            clauselist = list_concat(clauselist, ((BoolExpr *) subclause)->args);
        } else {
            clauselist = lappend(clauselist, subclause);
        }
    }

    /*
     * If we got a restriction clause from every arm, wrap them up in an OR
     * node.  (In theory the OR node might be unnecessary, if there was only
     * one arm --- but then the input OR node was also redundant.)
     */
    if (clauselist != NIL) {
        return make_orclause(clauselist);
    }
    return NULL;
}

/*
 * Consider whether a successfully-extracted restriction OR clause is
 * actually worth using.  If so, add it to the planner's data structures,
 * and adjust the original join clause (join_or_rinfo) to compensate.
 */
static void consider_new_or_clause(PlannerInfo *root, RelOptInfo *rel, Expr *orclause, RestrictInfo *join_or_rinfo)
{
    RestrictInfo *or_rinfo = NULL;
    Selectivity or_selec, orig_selec;

    /*
     * Build a RestrictInfo from the new OR clause.  We can assume it's valid
     * as a base restriction clause.
     */
    or_rinfo = make_restrictinfo(orclause, true, false, false, join_or_rinfo->security_level, NULL, NULL, NULL, false);

    /*
     * Estimate its selectivity.  (We could have done this earlier, but doing
     * it on the RestrictInfo representation allows the result to get cached,
     * saving work later.)
     */
    or_selec = clause_selectivity(root, (Node *) or_rinfo, 0, JOIN_INNER, NULL);

    /*
     * The clause is only worth adding to the query if it rejects a useful
     * fraction of the base relation's rows; otherwise, it's just going to
     * cause duplicate computation (since we will still have to check the
     * original OR clause when the join is formed).  Somewhat arbitrarily, we
     * set the selectivity threshold at 0.9.
     */
    if (or_selec > 0.9) {
        return;                    /* forget it */
    }

    /*
     * OK, add it to the rel's restriction-clause list.
     */
    rel->baserestrictinfo = lappend(rel->baserestrictinfo, or_rinfo);
    rel->baserestrict_min_security = Min(rel->baserestrict_min_security, or_rinfo->security_level);

    /*
     * Adjust the original join OR clause's cached selectivity to compensate
     * for the selectivity of the added (but redundant) lower-level qual. This
     * should result in the join rel getting approximately the same rows
     * estimate as it would have gotten without all these shenanigans.
     *
     * XXX major hack alert: this depends on the assumption that the
     * selectivity will stay cached.
     *
     * XXX another major hack: we adjust only norm_selec, the cached
     * selectivity for JOIN_INNER semantics, even though the join clause
     * might've been an outer-join clause.  This is partly because we can't
     * easily identify the relevant SpecialJoinInfo here, and partly because
     * the linearity assumption we're making would fail anyway.  (If it is an
     * outer-join clause, "rel" must be on the nullable side, else we'd not
     * have gotten here.  So the computation of the join size is going to be
     * quite nonlinear with respect to the size of "rel", so it's not clear
     * how we ought to adjust outer_selec even if we could compute its
     * original value correctly.)
     */
    if (or_selec > 0) {
        SpecialJoinInfo sjinfo;

        /*
         * Make up a SpecialJoinInfo for JOIN_INNER semantics.  (Compare
         * approx_tuple_count() in costsize.c.)
         */
        sjinfo.type = T_SpecialJoinInfo;
        sjinfo.min_lefthand = bms_difference(join_or_rinfo->clause_relids,
                                             rel->relids);
        sjinfo.min_righthand = rel->relids;
        sjinfo.syn_lefthand = sjinfo.min_lefthand;
        sjinfo.syn_righthand = sjinfo.min_righthand;
        sjinfo.jointype = JOIN_INNER;
        /* we don't bother trying to make the remaining fields valid */
        sjinfo.lhs_strict = false;
        sjinfo.delay_upper_joins = false;
        sjinfo.join_quals = NIL;

        /* Compute inner-join size */
        orig_selec = clause_selectivity(root, (Node *) join_or_rinfo, 0, JOIN_INNER, &sjinfo);

        /* And hack cached selectivity so join size remains the same */
        join_or_rinfo->norm_selec = orig_selec / or_selec;
        /* ensure result stays in sane range, in particular not "redundant" */
        if (join_or_rinfo->norm_selec > 1) {
            join_or_rinfo->norm_selec = 1;
        }
        /* as explained above, we don't touch outer_selec */
    }
}
